¹ Kaimio, M., The Chorus of Greek Drama within the Light of the Person and Number Used ; Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum, Societas Scientarum Fennica 46 (1970) 45.Google Scholar

² Aeschylus, Agamemnon, edd. Denniston, J. D. and Page, D. (Oxford 1957) 92–93, hereafter cited as Denniston and Page.Google Scholar

³ These difficulties were recognized by Herrmann, G., Aeschyli Tragoediae II (Leipzig 1952) 388, followed by Fraenkel, E., Aeschylus, Agamemnon II (Oxford 1950) 144–45 (hereafter cited as Fraenkel), and Thomson, G., The Oresteia of Aeschylus (Amsterdam and Prague 1966) 27.Google Scholar

⁴ Dawe, R. D., ‘Inconsistency of Plot and Character in Aeschylus,’ PCPhS 189 (1963) 44–46, points out what he believes are inconsistencies in feelings and actions of the chorus in Agamemnon. They are, at any rate, of a different type from the inconsistency implied by the interpretation of ἕϱϰος as the chorus — namely, that they are making an abrupt change in their view of themselves .Google Scholar

⁵ Op. cit. 86. But it would be better not to use the term sinner, which tends to suggest Christian ideas.Google Scholar

⁶ Ibid.Google Scholar

⁷ Ibid.Google Scholar

⁸ Lebeck, A., The Oresteia: A Study in Language and Structure (Washington, D.G. and Cambridge, Mass. 1971) 26.Google Scholar

⁹ Of recent critics one must include Lloyd-Jones, H. as well: ‘Zeus in Aeschylus,’ JHS 76 (1956) 62. Dodds, E. R., The Ancient Concept of Progress (Oxford 1973) 16 [= PCPhS 6 (1960)], does not share this view.Google Scholar

The proverbial expression παθεῖν-μαθεῖν was the subject of an excellent study by Dörrie, H., ‘Leid und Erfahrung: Die Wort- und Sinn-Verbindung παθεῖν-μαθεῖν im griechischen Denken,’ Abh. Akad. Mainz 1956 no. 5. At the very least, his study shows that it is impossible to equate πάθει μάθος and ἔϱξαντα παθεῖν. For Croesus (παθήματα μαθήματα, Herodotus 1.207) and the chorus of the Agamemnon, nun erst erhält πάθος etwas von der positiven Wertung, die der Erfahrung — πεῖϱα — seit je anhaftete‘ (op. cit. 321). Expressed in this way the notion ‘learning through suffering’ seems to be something relatively new. Hesiod put little value on this type of learning. Epimetheus realizes his mistake (WD, 88) — but he is not held up to us as one who learns, nor is the fool so regarded who realizes the way of dike too late: παθὼν δέ τε νήπιος ἔγνω (218). The expression is similar in Homer (P 31–33 = Y 197–98). For Hesiod one either already knows what to do or accepts advice from someone who does (as Perses is to accept Hesiod's advice). To Pindar παθών ἔγνω still seems to be an undesirable notion (cf. Dörrie, , op. cit. 316–17): ἄγνωμον δὲ τὸ μὴ πϱομαθεῖν, Ol. 8.60.Google Scholar

The situation in Homer is actually more complex than meets the eye. While the expression (P 31–32) is of the type that suggests that suffering is not a beneficial learning experience, some characters do in fact learn through suffering, as Solmseno, F. pints out, Gnomon 31 (1959) 469–75 in a review of Dörrie, op. cit. Google Scholar

In general, the expression παθών ἔγνω does not seem to refer to genuine learning but merely to perception that something has been done that produces pain. The type παθήματα μαθήματα (παθεῖν–μαθεῖν), on the other hand, if we take Dome's examples, usually refers to some real learning, and so should perhaps not, after all, be equated with the proverb παθών ἔγνω. Burkert, W in his review of Dörrie, , Gymnasium 66 (1959) 168–70, presents good reasons for suspecting that the expression παθεῖν–μαθεῖν was relatively new, originating ‘not too long before Aeschylus and Herodotus.’ Google Scholar

Gagarin, M., Aeschylean Drama (Berkeley 1976) 144–50, suggests that μάθος does not refer to anything more than ‘learning in a rather limited sense,’ much like the English saying ‘He learned his lesson.’ This may be true for παθών ἔγνω, but surely not for παθεῖν–μαθεῖν. He says that Croesus was able ‘truly to learn the lessons of his experiences,’ which seems to imply that he believes Croesus μαθήματα to be genuinely positive, but this of course is inconsistent with the meaning he sees in the same type of expression in Aeschylus. Later in the play, threats used against the chorus by Clytemnestra, (1425) and Aegisthus, (1645) have γνώσει but not μάθος.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Laws 700b.Google Scholar

¹¹ Cf. Meyer, Herbert, Hymnische Stilelemente in der frühgriechischen Dichtung (Diss. Cologne 1933) 23 n. 3: ‘Ὕμνος ist bis zu den theoretischen Scheidungen im Zeitalter Platons etwa ganz allgemein jede “kunstvoll gewebte Rede,” darin dem lateinischen “carmen” nicht unähnlich.’ Google Scholar

¹² Denniston and Page 86, however, correctly refer to it as a prayer. Fraenkel II 113–14, goes so far as to deny that it is a prayer at all. His main reason seems to be that the chorus have nothing to pray for. ‘They glorify Zeus, attempt to fathom his nature, and describe the way in which his will works.’ But if they care for Agamemnon and Argos they have quite a bit to pray for (cf. above, p. 3, and below, p 9–10). Fraenkel, also sees the chorus in these lines as speaking ‘above all for the poet.’ To some extent I think this is true but not to the degree Fraenkel does. He does not tell us his reasons for taking these lines to be the direct voice of the poet. On the ‘hymn’ as the voice of the poet see the good remarks of Pope, Maurice, JHS 94 (1974) 112.Google Scholar

¹³ Cf. RE s.v. Hymnos, 144–45 (Wünsch); Meyer, , op. cit. 3–6.Google Scholar

¹⁴ By Ausfeld, , De graecorum precationibus quaestiones (Diss. Leipzig 1903) 525. Meyer, , op. cit. 5, points out the weaknesses of the term and suggests in its place ‘Hypomnese,’ the ‘reminding.’ But this is not appropriate for all of the devices used at this point to gain the god's good will, e.g., promises of future favors.Google Scholar

¹⁵ It is preceded by a prayer to the Muses (lines 1–2). For other examples of prayers in the third person see Norden, E., Agnostos Theos (Stuttgart 1923) 163–66.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Cf. Usener, H., Götternamen 336 (cited by Norden, , op.cit. 146): ‘Zur erhofften Wirkung ist das treffende Wort die wichtigste Bedingung: man muss den Gott bei dem Namen anrufen und verpflichten, der das Vermögen, gerade in dem besonderen Falle zu helfen, einschliesst. Man häuft die Beinamen, und tut darin lieber des Guten zu viel, als dass man sich der Gefahr aussetzt, das entscheidende Wort zu übersehn.’ Google Scholar

¹⁷ Earlier expressions of this sort of aporia were more restrained. Cf. Homeric Hymn to Apollo, 207, πῶς τ ἄϱ σ' ὑμνήσω πάσω πάντως εὔυμνον ἐόντα (this of course is similar to, but not a prayer; the sense, as the following lines confirm, is: ‘What story shall I tell about you? There are so many.’); Callimachus, , Hymn to Zeus 4, πῶς ϰαί νιν, Διϰταῖον ἀείσομεν ἠὲ Λυϰαῖϰν Lucian, , Timon 1, makes a joke of the aporia: (A god's status was often linked to the number of epithets available for him; on πολνωνυωνυμία see Usener, , op. cit. 334–35). The traditional difficulty that faced a suppliant seeking the right epithet is reflected in Aristophanes, , Knights 1165–89, where various epithets of Athena are represented (in jest) as separate goddesses.Google Scholar

¹⁸ πϱοσεννέπειν is used in addressing or calling-upon in prayer (as in Ag. 162) in Pind. Isthm. 6.17, S. Aj. 857, E. Hipp. 99; an allusion to this usage is found in Ag. 129' (Fraenkel II 101).Google Scholar

¹⁹ They call their ἄχθος ‘vain,’ i.e. ‘fruitless,’ perhaps because it seems to offer no way out, no hope. They are powerless to deal with it: But the god has the power.Google Scholar

Beattie, A. J., Classical Quarterly 49 (1955) 14, rightly notes the groping, tentative style of these lines: ‘This style of composition is no doubt intended to represent the Chorus's reluctance to express an unpalatable truth about the situation of their princes and also the difficulty which they experience in unravelling the ways of Zeus.’ But I would put it a bit differently: the difficulty in describing Zeus so as to invoke him properly.Google Scholar

²⁰ More traditional is Julian, , Orat. 7.231a: 'Ω Zεῦ πάτεϱ ἤ ὅτι σοι ϕίλον ὄνομα ϰαὶ ὅπως ὀνομάζεσθαι Google Scholar

²¹ Cf. other instances in Norden, , op. cit. 144–45. In the phrase refers (as does the previous ἡμῖν) both to Socrates and his present company and in general to those praying to a god whose name they do not know. It was evidently not customary to use ὅστις ἐστί in place of a god's name if it was known.Google Scholar

There is a variation when a god has several names, and one does not know which to use: Euripides, fr. 912 Bacchae 275–76 Similar to this is the invocation of the suppliant who knows one or more names but not all the names or epithets and most appropriate description of the god, as in Philebus 12c Protagoras 358b, a parody (εἴτε γὰϱ ἡδὺ εἴτε τεϱπνὸν λέγεις, εἴτε χαϱτόθεν ϰαὶ ὅπως χαίϱεις τὰ τοιαῦτα ὀνομάζων), Timaeus 28b, Euthydemus 288b, etc. And a ὅστις-clause can be used with this type: cf. the parody in Athenaeus 8.334b and Plato, , Phaedrus 273c (ὁ Tεισίας ἤ ἄλλος ἅστις δή ποτ' ὤν τυγχάνει ϰαὶ ὁπόθεν χαόθεν χαίϱει ὀνομαζόμενος). What is unusual about Agamemnon 160 is that ὅστις ποτ' ἐστίν is apparently used in a situation not where the god's name is unknown but where his key epithet is unknown.Google Scholar

²² Fraenkel, I 101 ad lines 160–62. The words I have quoted seem more applicable to 163–65. His whole sentence reads: ‘If this appellation here is pleasing to him (the speaker surveys the whole range of possible names of the supreme god, and points to one among them expressly), then by that one I address him, namely Zeus.’ But the chorus address him not as Zeus but as Zεὺς ὅστις ποτ' ἐστίν. The speaker is not sure of the proper name, either here or after his ‘survey’ in 164–65.Google Scholar

²³ Cf. Norden, , op. cit. 166–68.Google Scholar

²⁴ Cf. ibid. 161, 168.Google Scholar

²⁵ Rose, H. J. raised the question why Uranos and Kronos are not named (La Notion du Divin, Fondation Hardt I 91). For one thing, it is less offensive (to them) to omit their names if they are to be passed over. In addition, it was customary in invocations to name a god's parents. This, like the epithet, helped to define the god. Here the chorus name neither epithet (at first) nor parent. They seem not to want to think of Zeus as closely associated with and similar to his ancestors. Proper piety demands an allusion, at least a ὁπόθεν χαίϱει ὀνομαζόμενος (see note 21); the allusion is there, but the chorus, here too, express themselves very independently of the convention, for there is good reason not to mention ancestors at all. This limited, indirect mention thus satisfies traditional piety and at the same time serves to emphasize qualities of Zeus that distinguish him from his ancestors.Google Scholar

²⁶ Lloyd-Jones, H., Classical Quarterly 47 (1953) 96, would translate ἄνομον ‘tuneless’ (from νόμος = ‘tune’), being of the same order as ἄδαιτον without a feast.' The suggestion has considerable logic, but I doubt the poet would expect his audience to understand the unusual ‘tuneless’ without giving them a clue, as he does the only other time he uses the word (1141). ἄδαιτον is explanatory of ἄνομον: What is not according to νόμος, at the literal, sacral level is that the sacrifice will lack a banquet.Google Scholar

²⁷ The traditional attitude toward the shedding of kindred blood is described by Plato, , Laws 872a–873b; cf. Isocrates, , Panathenaicus 121–22; Moulinier, L., Le pur et l' impur dans la pensée des Grecs (Paris 1952) 233. Plato cites the old law: (872e). The body of a person convicted of slaying ‘deliberately and of free will’ father, mother, brethren, or children is to be stoned at a crossroads outside the city and then hurled unburied beyond the borders of the land. Plato's description of the situation of this sort of criminal applies perfectly to Agamemnon: that bound Agamemnon, but he acted Google Scholar

Dawe, R. D., Eranos 64 (1966) 1–21, found the connection between the ‘Hymn to Zeus’ and the preceding choral song extremely harsh. Fraenkel found it merely ‘harsh’; but according to Dawe what seemed ‘harsh’ to Fraenkel ‘must have seemed even harsher to the peasant audience of 458 b.c.’ (op. cit. 2). To call it a peasant audience is an oversimplification; so fortunately we do not have to limit our discussion and interpretation of the play to what we think might be perceived by a rather thick-headed audience. Dawe's general view of the placement of the ‘Hymn to Zeus’ met with some good objections from Bergson, L., Eranos 65 (1967) 12–24; and cf. Dover, J. K., Journal of Hellenic Studies 93 (1973) 63. Also pertinent are the fine remarks of Ferrari, W, AnnPisa 7 (1938) 355–80: ‘Per l'inno a Zeus dell' Agamemnone non si può indicare nessun legame logico di contenuto con il canto che lo precede. Un legame c'è, ma è puramente psicologico’ (379). The chorus gradually reveal in the parodos that they are greatly troubled 99–101); the feeling was first expressed by the watchman. It is important not to forget that the chorus already know the events at Aulis, and not to forget that at least most of the audience will not have been surprised at the hints that there is something wrong. From the stories they already know, they can imagine possibilities — Clytemnestra's treachery, Agamemnon's sacrifice, etc. — but specific events and causes and effects still are obscure. The audience's curiosity has been aroused and they wait for the details to unfold. The chorus' narrative is not purely a narrative; they are gradually revealing what is disturbing them so; they approach it gingerly; it is clear that it is painful; and they repeat at the end of each stanza an apotropaic incantation. Ferrari's remarks on lines 123–59, op. cit. 377–78, well describe the increasing intensity of the chorus‘ anxiety that reaches a peak with the final words of Calchas: τεϰνόποινος è parola terribile e illumina d'uno scorcio pauroso tutto il destino che incombe sulla casa degli Atridi: di qui la ratione e il colorito di μόϱσιμα al v. 157.’ Google Scholar

‘Harsh’ seems to be not quite the right word to describe the transition to the Prayer to Zeus: it is ‘sensational.’ The chorus now go quickly, though obliquely, to the heart of their worry. The abrupt turning to Zeus dramatizes their dilemma, throws it into relief, and makes us all the more eager to hear the rest of their story.Google Scholar

²⁸ Dover's, J. K. interpretation, op. cit. 63, seems to be close to this: ‘Of course the “learning by suffering” which Zeus has decreed (177f.) has its positive side, especially if the sufferer survives (cf. Croesus to Cyrus in Hdt. 1. 207.1).’ As I was correcting the proofs of this article, I saw that Smith, O. L., in Eranos 71 (1973) 7, expressed a similar interpretation: ‘the optimism of the chorus is flatly contradicted.’ Google Scholar

²⁹ Treu, M., ‘Der Zeushymnos im Agamemnon des Aischylos,’ (Thessalonica) 9 (1965) 220, who prefers ἀνθ' ὕπνου, explains: ‘Wir wissen alle, wie stetig tropfendes Wasser den, der schlafen möchte, nicht einschlafen lässt. So ist hier von einem vergleichbaren Geschehen die Rede, das sich, wie wir sagen würden, vor dem geistigen Auge vollzieht: πϱὸ ϰαϱδίας sagt Aischylos. Statt uns Schlaf zu gönnen (ἄνθ’ ὕπνου), “tropft da stetig” (στάζει) der Google Scholar

³⁰ On χάϱις βίαιος (βιαίως) see especially Fraenkel's remarks, ad loc., and Philologus 86 (1931) 14. Pope, M., Journal of Hellenic Studies 94 (1973) 100–13, argues against Turnebus' reading βίαιις and the που enclitic of FTr. Conacher, D. J., Phoenix 30 (1976) 328–36, has in my opinion convincingly argued for the retention of enclitic Google Scholar

³¹ Eranos 64 (1966) 1.Google Scholar

³² Ibid. 6–8.Google Scholar

³³ ‘The Hymn to Zeus in Aeschylus' Agamemnon,’ Eranos 65 (1967) 12.Google Scholar

³⁴ Fraenkel II 113.Google Scholar

³⁵ Above, p. 5.Google Scholar

³⁶ Cf. Iliad 16.516 (Glaucus): ὡς νῦν ἐμὲ ϰῆδος ἱϰάνει, and then he describes the ϰῆδος.Google Scholar

³⁷ Some other examples are collected by Ausfeld, , op. cit. (above, n. 14) 533.Google Scholar

³⁸ Ziegler, K., De Precationum apud Graecos formis selectis quaestiones selectae (Diss. Bratislava 1905) 37, places a prayer with an opening like this among those of his ‘fifth type.’ Google Scholar

³⁹ I quite agree with Dover's, J. K. description of the chorus,. Journal of Hellenic Studies 93 (1973) 61: ‘Since the chorus of Ag. are old men, loyal to their king but no more disposed than most Greeks to servility or to the suppression of normal human reactions, and reflection on antecedent events is a common formal function of a Greek chorus, we might expect to find their treatment of the sacrifice of Iphigeneia characterised by caution, doubt, and ambivalence in everything that concerns the responsibility for it as an act, contrasting with unambiguous revulsion against it as an event.’ And: ‘One of the striking characteristics of the chorus's narrative is its indirectness.’ Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Emending to read ἲτω δὲ τὸ πϱοστένειν might be preferable to keeping the very obscure of the manuscripts. Cf. Septem 964, ἲτω γόος. ἲτω δάϰϱυα; Supp. 199, τὸ μὴ μάταιον ἲτω. However, it would require lengthening of a short syllable before initial mute and liquid. The only other secure instance is Choeph. 606 (but now emended by Page); cf. Fraenkel III 826–27.Google Scholar

⁴¹ In Sophocles', Electra Clytemnestra refers to a statue of Apollo simply as (635).Google Scholar

⁴² Cf. Pindar, , P. 9.64: ἁγνὸν ‘Aπόλλων’, ἀνδϱάσι χάϱμα ϕίλοις ἄγχιστον ὀπάονα μήλων. In O.T 919 of course there is irony, but the irony achieves its effect through natural use of traditional religious language.Google Scholar

⁴³ Aristotle, , Ath. Pol. 55.3. On Zeus Herkeios in general see Sjövall, H., Zeus im altgriechischen Hauskult (Lund 1931) 7–48, especially 35–39.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ In Libation-Bearers the altar and statue were probably replaced by a gravestone (and perhaps some sort of surrounding base or steps) representing the site of Agamemnon's grave. On a Sicilian red-figured kalyx-krater of 380–70, which probably represents a scene from Libation-Bearers, reflecting a local production, Agamemnon's grave is marked by an altar and an Ionic column (Trendall, A. D. and Webster, T. B. L., Illustrations of Greek Drama [London 1971] 42–43, no. III.13). An altar is rather unusual at a grave site (cf. Kurtz, D. C. and Boardman, J., Greek Burial Customs [London 1971] 218–46, 301), though it is occasionally found (see Barlow, J. A. and Coleman, J. E., ‘Electra and Orestes at Cornell,’ American Journal of Archaeology [forthcoming] notes 34–36). Here it may be a matter of a prop's being reused from the preceding play, the statue of Zeus merely having been removed from on top of the column. (Other representations of Libation-Bearers on South Italian vases show steps and a pedestal representing Agamemnon's tomb; Trendall, and Webster, , op. cit. nos. III. 14–15. The pedestal could have held a statue during Agamemnon. On a Paestan neck-amphora, ibid., III.16, we see only an Ionic column marking the tomb; it too, of course, could have held a statue in the preceding play.) Such a combination of an altar and a column supporting a statue of a god appears in other illustrations of dramatic scenes (ibid., 86 no. III.3 20; 137 no. IV 24). And the combination of altar and statue of Zeus Herkeios occurs elsewhere in vase-painting, including a scene in which Orestes slays Aegisthus (Cook, A. B., Zeus I [Cambridge 1914] 40 fig. 11). (Other representations of the altar and statue of Zeus Herkeios are given ibid. 38–39. Cook's view that they mark a ‘pillarcult’ seems improbable.) Occasional laxity in changing props may have been facilitated by the chorus' description of Agamemnon's grave as βωμὸν ὥς (Choeph. 106).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ The prayer does not end in complete aporia like Telemachus' in Odyssey 2.262–66, where Telemachus describes his predicament and simply ends his prayer without making a request! Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Denniston and Page found τεύξεται ϕϱενῶν τὸ πᾶν an ‘odd expression.’ But there is a parallel, with a slightly different sense, in Sophocles, , Electra, 992–93: Google Scholar

One shouts πϱοϕϱόνως and ἐπινίϰια so that Zeus will act πϱοϕϱόνως and ἐπινίϰια ἐπινίϰια in turn. ἐπινίϰια also carries on the image of Zeus as victor from 171–72. On the use of πϱόϕϱων in prayers cf. Keyssner, K., Gottesvorstellung und Lebensauffassung im griechischen Hymnus (Stuttgart 1932) 89, and Pindar, , N. 1.33.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Others are listed by Schmid-Stählin, , Teil I, Bd. 3.297 n. 3, cf. the discussion of Kranz, W., Stasimon (Berlin 1933) 83, and Wilamowitz' comment, Glaube der Hellenen II 133 n. 1.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Cf. Alcestis 713, with Dale's, comment, and Troades, 771.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Headlam, W., On Editing Aeschylus (London 1891) 138–58, rejects the idea put forward by Verrall that ‘of fourteen cases of ἔτυμος and ἐτήτυμος in Aeschylus no less than ten refer to an etymology.’ On the whole, I think Headlam is correct, but he probably goes too far in rejecting an etymology at Choeph. 948–51. One might note, also, the similiarity of the verb πϱοσειϰάζειν to ἀπειϰάζειν, which is used in an etymologizing context in Plato's Cratylus, 419c, 420d, 421b, 431c (and cf. 426e and 432b).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ A subject which I plan to discuss elsewhere. Conacher, D. J., most recently, op. cit. (above n. 30) 334–36, presents a brief but valuable discussion.Google Scholar